Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. MN-118 and 119 of 1982, decided on 25th April, 1982.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)----
--- S. O. 1. (b)--Workman--Termination-Workman initially appoin ted for 88 days and after gaps of 4 days again employed for further 88 days-Rules not supporting his case for permanent employment -Termination of appointment-Right can be claimed only if gua ranteed or secured by law, award or settlement--Termination of appointment, held, rightly ordered.
Ch. Altaf Hussain for Appellants.
Date of hearing : 17th April, 1982.
As question of facts and law involve in the two appeals captioned above are alike, they are being decided together through this single judgment.
2. Abdus Sattar was a Chaukidar and Kaloo a Mali. Both of them were shown to have been initially employed for 88 days on their applica tions and after gaps of 4 or 5 days again they were employed for further 88 days, up to the last when their services were finally terminated. Both of them challenged the order of their termination before the learned Lower Court claiming to be permanent workman posted on permanent posts. Definition of workman is given in Standing Orders 1 clause b' which reads as under: ---
"A permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last for more than 9 months and has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial or commercial establishment including breaks due to sickness, accident, leave, lock-out, strike (not an illegal lock-out or strike) or involuntarily closure of establishment."
The representative appearing for the appellant union has admitted that the rule is the same but he says that the workers are residing at headquarter and if they take residence at the site, they will be put to great inconveni ence, because after the completion of work at one place, they are made to work at other places and they cannot keep their residence away from the headquarter. The appellant can claim that right only which has been guaranteed or secured by any law, award or settlement. Since the rules do not support their case, there is no right guaranteed to them. The petition, in these circumstances, was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.
M. Y. M.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer